If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yeah, incredible. The only question I have is whether he gets his Nobel before bob b gets his. We all know Dr. Walt Brown gets the first one for this group.

But wait, perhaps we can make sure they get one in the same year. bob b for whatever one they give out for the biological sciences, (based no doubt on his "cell trends, too" thread), Dr. Brown in physics (the hydroplate theory) and Pastor Bob for literature (The Plot) or maybe Pastor Bob for peace (his new US constitution?).

Well, it is just my imagination but it could be that Dr. Brown, bob b, and Enyart might equate a Nobel award to getting blacklisted by being included with the likes of Ghandi (nominated 5x) and Yassir Arafat

Johnny hit the nail on the head, but I'm not sure if anyone explicitly answered your question, so here you are:

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

So, here is my question. What time would the Base Clock show at the moment that they made contact?

The Base Clock would show 12:10 p.m. on Friday, same time as the Summit Clock (or rather, the Summit Clock would show the same time as the Base Clock). And while I can't vouch for Calvinists, I'd imagine that this is the answer that most physicists and cosmologists would give you.

By the way, where did you get that bit about the "river of time [flowing] backward, not forward"?

I think Enyart's position is solid observational genius and utterly destroys some of the work of the so called greatest minds of recent history. It seems so obvious and simple in light of the ridiculous predictions of established theory.

Confused for my sake...

Guys, I have three minutes before CRTL president Brian Rohrbough shows up to do today's show, and this thread popped to the top with SUTG's post, and while I haven't read his post, or the thread itself (I'm ashamed to admit [schedule-bound]), I saw this from Johnny and had to reply:

Originally Posted by Johnny

This is more of a philosophical issue but I think it is paramount to the issue at hand and really needs to be discussed. What does it mean to say that clocks and things that measure intervals are effected but the interval itself is not effected? It is just as valid to say that the interval itself has changed as it is to say that all our measurements of any given interval have changed. (bold emphasis added)

Okay, where to begin... (and I only have 80 seconds left!)

Johnny, let me demonstrate the extreme error of your observation. If two wind-up clocks are ticking away side-by-side, and it takes me thirteen seconds to physically wind the hour-hand of the one clock ahead three hours, that was an action (an influence) that effected the clock, not the time the clock was measuring. That clock did not age three hours in the 13 seconds I fiddled with its big hand, and it didn't pass through three hours of time while it's neighbor ticked off 13 seconds. And of course, this illustration applies to countless influences upon all kinds of clocks.

Space-Time relativity and Physics

Originally Posted by Bob Enyart

For my interest in all this is theological. Biblically, I have been convinced that time is an eternal attribute of reality, and thus, of God’s existence, seen most easily in that He is relational. And many Calvinists and others teach that God is outside of time existing in an eternal now, and that He created time. So Calvinists commonly quote popular understandings of General Relativity’s time dilation as evidence for their claim that time is not absolute, and thus, God can exist outside of time. So, I have a vested interested in refuting that. Thus I argue that when folks say that time speeds up or slows down in different frames of reference, what they really mean is that stuff affects clocks.

Originally Posted by Jefferson

The natural universe is subject to the physical laws, so it would run out of useable energy; a supernatural, spiritual God is not subject to physics.

Quick question and my particular confusion (You'll forgive my science ignorance please) If God is not subject to physics, wouldn't it also be correct to say He is not subject to time as well? Space-Time relativity is a property of Physics?

Johnny, let me demonstrate the extreme error of your observation. If two wind-up clocks are ticking away side-by-side, and it takes me thirteen seconds to physically wind the hour-hand of the one clock ahead three hours, that was an action (an influence) that effected the clock, not the time the clock was measuring. That clock did not age three hours in the 13 seconds I fiddled with its big hand, and it didn't pass through three hours of time while it's neighbor ticked off 13 seconds. And of course, this illustration applies to countless influences upon all kinds of clocks.

Of course. You introduced a mechanical error into the clock's measurement of time -- the clock is no longer measuring time against a standard. It'd be like stretching a ruler out and measuring distance with a stretched ruler. That's not what I asked you. What I asked you is that if everything you measured with (ruler, thumb length, sonar, etc) gave you a certain distance, what meaning does it have to say that the length isn't actually that distance? I'll give you two analogies, one with time, and one with length. They both make the same philosophical point, but for some the second analogy might be easier to visualize. Chose whichever you want (I realize your time is limited, but both ask the same question).

Analogy 1: Time
Assume you and your buddy are floating in space each with your own wall clock. You picked this friend because coincidentally, he has the same heart rate and respirations you do. He also ties his shoes in the exact same amount of time you do.

You happen to look at your buddy floating some distance away from you and you notice that his wall clock is ticking off twice the rate yours is. You also notice that his heart rate and his respirations are twice that of yours. Finally, you see that he ties his shoes in half the time you do. If you time his actions against his clock, you notice that he's taking the normal amount of time. But if you clock them against your clock, you see that he's doing them too fast.

Your buddy looks over at you and notices that your wall click is ticking slow. Not only is your clock ticking slow, but your heart rate and respirations are half what they should be. Finally, he sees you tie your shoes in twice the time he did. If he clocks your actions against your clock, he notices that you're taking the normal amount of time. But if he clocks you against his clock, he sees that you're going too slow.

Question #1: In this scenario, if each observer had only himself and his clock (i.e. they couldn't see each other), would either know that something is not right?

Question #2: Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to determine whose clock is actually correct in this scenario?

Analogy 2: Length
Imagine you're floating out in space with a water bottle and a ruler. You take out your ruler and you measure the water bottle to be 10 inches tall. Then, imagine a process which shrinks you and your ruler but does not shrink the water bottle. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall.

Now imagine again you're floating with the 10 inch water bottle. Then, imagine a process which expands the water bottle but you and your ruler stay the same. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall.

Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened? Can you tell what meaning it has to assert that one or the other has happened? Is there any reason to assert that both cases are not functionally equivalent?

“There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

Quick question and my particular confusion (You'll forgive my science ignorance please) If God is not subject to physics, wouldn't it also be correct to say He is not subject to time as well? Space-Time relativity is a property of Physics?

He is not "subject" to time, he simply acts as one would expect a rational being to act - in good time.

Analogy 1: Time
Assume you and your buddy are floating in space each with your own wall clock. You picked this friend because coincidentally, he has the same heart rate and respirations you do. He also ties his shoes in the exact same amount of time you do. You happen to look at your buddy floating some distance away from you and you notice that his wall clock is ticking off twice the rate yours is. You also notice that his heart rate and his respirations are twice that of yours. Finally, you see that he ties his shoes in half the time you do. If you time his actions against his clock, you notice that he's taking the normal amount of time. But if you clock them against your clock, you see that he's doing them too fast. Your buddy looks over at you and notices that your wall click is ticking slow. Not only is your clock ticking slow, but your heart rate and respirations are half what they should be. Finally, he sees you tie your shoes in twice the time he did. If he clocks your actions against your clock, he notices that you're taking the normal amount of time. But if he clocks you against his clock, he sees that you're going too slow.

How would this situation arise. It would not arise from velocity because that would mean both would observe the same slowing down effect. One would have to be in a stronger gravitational field.

Originally Posted by Johnny

Question #1: In this scenario, if each observer had only himself and his clock (i.e. they couldn't see each other), would either know that something is not right?

No.

Originally Posted by Johnny

Question #2: Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to determine whose clock is actually correct in this scenario?

Both are working as they should.

Originally Posted by Johnny

Analogy 2: Length
Imagine you're floating out in space with a water bottle and a ruler. You take out your ruler and you measure the water bottle to be 10 inches tall. Then, imagine a process which shrinks you and your ruler but does not shrink the water bottle. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall. Now imagine again you're floating with the 10 inch water bottle. Then, imagine a process which expands the water bottle but you and your ruler stay the same. You now measure the water bottle as 20 inches tall. Can you tell me any method -- philosophical, mathematical, empirical, or other -- to deduce which process has actually happened? Can you tell what meaning it has to assert that one or the other has happened? Is there any reason to assert that both cases are not functionally equivalent?

He is not "subject" to time, he simply acts as one would expect a rational being to act - in good time.

Does this set you in the Calvinist camp Bob Enyart is speaking to? He seems to be saying that God is not limited to Physics but is constrained in a relational way to time. Again, please forgive my lack of strong science understanding but this is what leads to my confusion. Are you speaking for Enyart here, or the opposite?